There is no question.
You are defending the warts and getting angry that there have been a lot of them. You also lost this argument because you see only 2 systems and refuse to acknowledge other economic systems that have been doing pretty well for Europe
âYour feedback has been vital, and weâll continue to listen to our communityâweâre a live service now, and that gives us the ability to continue to make changes at a faster pace than in the past to help make Overwatch 2 the best experience it can be.â
So, whatâs happening to all the feedback about how the new monetization system is evil and you should still be able to earn things given enough time on top of microtransactions? And microtransactions that are actually micro. $20 is not a microtransaction. Thatâs a normal transaction. Or how about the fact that it took outrage to get even just a few flimsy balance updates asap instead of being lazy and slow about it? Nine week balance intervals are not faster than ever. And as that was the plan prior to changes from community outcry, saying youâre making changes faster than ever is a blatant lie.
You canât be serious surely. If you want Overwatch to be the best experience it can be, then making all of these bad evil monetization changes is directly contrary to your proposed goal. Removing one barrier of entry in buying the game DOES NOT AT ALL EXCUSE ANY OF THIS. Let us earn cosmetics in-game like before, event skins included, and keep microtransactions on top of that, that hopefully less stingy. Nothing has been good news. This in no way benefits us the players. And a Reaper skin given instead of giving us access to earning most everything like it always has been is not a good apology. Itâs not even an apology. Itâs a bribe.
âAnd donât even try to tell me that it doesnât affect gameplay. Itâs part of the game, so itâs affecting my gameplay. Thatâs the end of it.â -IHE talking about cosmetics
Not angry in the least, I just clearly know more about the subjects. Europe with âsocialismâ (and the US is socialist btw as well) is just capitalism with a thin veneer on it. I almost moved to Europe, and am married to a European, one born under Communism btw. I know quite a bit more about all this than you think I do.
Well lying hasnât worked out for you yet but eventually it might, oh wait search engines exsist no it wonât.
Lying about what exactly? You made the charge, defend it.
Iâd also add that speculation on a satellite was first proposed by Germans in IIRC the late 20âs or early 30âs. Television or what became it was speculated during the 1880âsâŚ
âSocialistâ systems are just for the most part highly-regulated Capitalism. All they really are. China is a good example, so is say France.
Oh projection too.
You made the claim capitalism is the best system
Said it doesnât have faults then backtrack when i gave a very brief history of it.
Why do i need to defend your point? You defend it.
You guys are heroes to them for buying $20 skins
I donât necessarily expect my take to stop this argument but Iâll try. Personally I think Communism is best worked small scale. You know, actual small communities. There will always be greedy selfish people who want power one way or another. And somehow they always wind up getting to or staying at the top, regardless of what system is being implemented. I wonât pretend like Capitalism is perfect, especially when weâre all experiencing what unchecked corporate greed can do right now. But I donât think more regulation on these markets by itself can hurt.
I think the real problem is that the larger scale you get, the harder it is to hold people accountable, and the more corrupt individuals show up. I donât think either system is bad on paper really. The problem is that no matter how you apply it, as long as greedy power hungry individuals can slip in, theyâll all fall apart. I wonât pretend I know the answers on how to prevent this though. I just hope someday, somehow, weâll have people who really care about people across the nation as a whole. And that weâll have a peaceful middle ground of free market and being communities helping each other.
It probably wonât happen, especially not in my lifetime. But one can hope.
Nothing contradictory, you have a simplified view of capitalism
I said in the first post it had faults, you are now the one lying clearly.
My first comment on the subject.
Following this:
People who rant about âCapitalismâ fail to show a system that is any better (Socialism as its been able to exist is just a cleaned up Capitalism in reality). They also ignore the fact âCapitalismâ gave them the Internet, PCâs and by extension, Overwatch. Sure it has its abuses, no question, OTOH it has more benefits than drawbacks. People just of course focus on the drawbacks while furiously typing on their Macbooks 
âSocialistsâ hate to admit it, but Capitalism underlies everyone of those systems. They think social programs ergo âSocialismâ wipes away the dirt, but itâs still there. Canada, Britain, France, China⌠all the same in that regard to one degree or another whether they want to admit it or not.
The nearest system to provide rapid technological innovation to Capitalism so far is fascism.
Lol this was your second comment on it.
You excused the flaws because capitalism âis the best systemâ which is contradictory
Your only argument for that is a blatant lie that another economic system is capitalism, despite no they arenât the same.
Show me the first then.
I excused nothing, I pointed them out but in the context of rapid technological progress historically the best system is Capitalism, followed by fascism.
Tell me how I am lying then. Socialism is underpinned by Capitalism in actual economic activity, just layering on regulation and social programs.
Socialism tends to create so much overhead development is slower. Note that nowhere did I say one system was in all regards âbetterâ but I did indicate from a technology perspective Capitalism is fastest, only maybe exceeded by fascism.
I am sorry this does not jive with the manifesto thinking you were raised on, its just not true in all regards.
Zero evidence refusal to give support to the claim
I literally explained how capitalism was doing that
Because you say so doesnât make it truth, now stop projecting
History shows clearly who has had the most advancements.
Socialism retards more; I didnât say Capitalism was a perfect smooth path. Its just faster.
Likewise. And to state an opinion is not âprojectingâ. My God, what do they teach you these days, what part of Europe are you in?
When I studied abroad years ago I actually spoke with someone from a poor town that went from communist to capitalist (or at least they said they were). Long story short they got screwed.
Even Capitalist countries arenât 100% considering the tons of regulations surrounding it: laws concerning monopolies, insider trading, ethics, employee benefits, etc.It feels like more laws get added or changed every few years.
Iâm fine with chasing dollars, but I believe the market could use a few more rails to protect the general public.
Heck the US government technically uses interest rates, taxes, and tarrifs to manipulate the market when things get out of hand.
Of course they got âscrewedâ, its a tough transition off the dole. I also know people who lived through the reverse and lost quite a bit too.
As you said, âCapitalistâ countries of which none technically exist now are mostly degrees of âSocialistâ due to layering on of programs. By that measure the U.S. has been a Socialist country since 1935.
People always are for whatâs important to them.
Whatâs humorous is my âopponentâ here never once had the brains to ask me what system I personally thought best, but blindly had to believe on all points âhurrrr Capitalism bad, badâ and âSocialism good, goodâ and that was all there was to it. Itâs just not that simple in life.
I agree, but imo the question then becomes: âIf it worked for them at that scale, then why transition?â
In both cases the transition didnât benefit them and they likely didnt have a realistic choice in the matter.
Theyâre degrees of both, just depends on how far a country sways.
Same thing with democracies/republics. The US is technically a Democratic Republic, not a democracy which essentially means that while larger numbers mean power, itsâ smaller groups still have sizable power and can sway decisions.
Iâd like the same with capitalism/socialism. I have no issue with some people making more or having more when theyâve earned it or even if they were just lucky in life. I do however think that some systems benefit the wealthy too much, that there are far too many overpaid/underpaid people, and that the â1%â could at least be closer to the 5%.
61% of the population living paycheck-to-paycheck or hand-to-mouth is ridiculous to me.
You actions and reactions means youâre trying to state your opinions as fact without sources to back it up
Because
Yeah, waring countries, ive also proven itâs been slowing progress for years now, you still refuse refute any of that.
Capitalism as it is now, breeds corruption and greed. The system says they can have it all, they will try to take it all. This leads to unscrupulous and illegal business practices often as the fine is significantly less that the profit they would gain. Rigging of the stock market to put business under. The system is no longer in favor of the working class and public. It favors corporations and the politicians they lobby for. Capitalism is a good system but it needs to be regulated better. This wonât happen as the politicians who would be regulating them are paid off by them. Once upon a time bribe money they used to sway foreign dignitaries was actually able to be used as a tax write off. The problem with the system is actually people. we are easily corruptible, and greedy. They more they have the more they want. In the 50âs the top marginal tax rate was around 90% the country flourished. The neoliberal âgreed is goodâ era changed this drastically though it was already in decline. Fast forward to today the top rate is 21% today. This is mostly due the the trickle down economics theory which states that tax breaks and benefits for corporations and the wealthy will trickle down to everyone else. The trend is give them breaks, they want more, the lay people off, they remain understaffed, they collect subsidies. Its more of a trickle up kind of thing. Money is being siphoned from the middle and working class which is why they gap in wealth equality is increasing exponentially under the system with its current lack of regulation.
Worthless company Blizzard i despise every single one of you and it hurts because i loved this game and its concept
Iâm not going to respond to your entire post. Mostly because I donât entirely disagree with it, and I also donât remember the specifics of the conversation, but I do want to point this out to you.
1.) Iâm not setting a high bar, or telling people to protest. I was making a point on how, no, we havenât exausted all the options for holding blizzard accountable. I donât even think weâve started to.
2.) Youâre wrong. You say
But Blizzard has numerous accusations of sexual harassments, enabling sexual harassment, and maybe even driving someone to suicide? Youâre wrong in saying that Blizzard hasnât done anything to deeply affect people in the same way that abortion and such does; I think weâre all affected by what blizzard is accused of, and I think protesting the company and demanding them shuffle their leaders around wouldnât be outlandish.
I think you egregiously underestimated that part.